No such thing as evil - top trumped

[Walsingham]

BBC link.

 

Be warned, it's not easy to stomach.

 

Just piling up ammunition the next time someone tells me morality is relative and subjective.

 

"A Briton faces up to 27 years in a US jail for plotting to kidnap, rape, kill and eat a child, authorities say.

Agents found the basement of Geoffrey Portway's Massachusetts home equipped with a steel cage and a child-sized home-made coffin, in a raid last year.

...

The dungeon was further kitted out with a chair, a television, and what appeared to be cable access to the internet, officers said.

Outside the room detectives found a chest freezer and an upright freezer, along with some disposable scalpels, butchering kits, and castration tools."

 

[Monte Carlo]

This is why opponents of the death penalty baffle and mystify me.

[Malcador]

This is why opponents of the death penalty baffle and mystify me.

Locking someone up in a tiny room for 23 hours a day can be arguably worse than death, no ?

[Monte Carlo]

Possibly, but 'tis very expensive.

[Maedhros]

I've heard death penalties are usually more expensive than giving someone lifetime without parole. Googled it:

 

http://www.acadp.org/contents/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=40:costs&catid=14

 

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

[alanschu]

This is why opponents of the death penalty baffle and mystify me.

 

I dislike the death penalty because the justice system is run by fallible human beings.  Compounding this concern is the susceptibility of a human being actually being corrupt (which is far worse than mere incompetence).  People have made careers out of high profile death penalty cases, and knowing it can be dubious on its legitimacy is concerning.

 

As a result, you must have failsafes in places to grant due process to these individuals.  The end result is what most supporters of the death penalty don't fully realize: it is cheaper to keep someone in prison for life than it is to execute them.

 

Unfortunately, you can't just grab someone and expedite his execution.  Unless you wish to become a police state, because you WILL get situations where people are wrongfully executed.  Given it's the justice system, I'd rather have some crazy psychos not be executed than any innocent people executed.

Edited May 9, 2013 by alanschu

[Malcador]

Possibly, but 'tis very expensive.

Well no doubt it's expensive. But capital punishment isn't cheap, have to go through appeals and ensure that you're absolutely as correct as you can be - a very final step to kill someone after all.

 

Sealing someone up in a box for life is probably a much harsher punishment as they have to suffer through a loss of freedom. And you can also work that person as well, although that may drift close to slavery for some.

[Orogun01]

I've heard death penalties are usually more expensive than giving someone lifetime without parole. Googled it:

 

http://www.acadp.org/contents/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=40:costs&catid=14

 

http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42

That's because they have gotten all artsy fartsy with killing people, when a good shot to the head will do. Or we can get one of those airguns they use to kill cows.

[Hurlshort]

I'm against the death penalty.  Mainly I dont think any civilized society needs to be actively involved in the ending of lives.  The only legitimate reason for that is to protect others.  

 

That being said, I think the penal system needs massive overhauls.  In the US we use prison as an answer for too many societal problems.  

[Rosbjerg]

In the US we use prison as an answer for too many societal problems.  

 

I think the problem is it was turned into a profitable industry - I doubt it's good for a society to have industry take an interest in something that is detrimental to the society as a whole.

[Hurlshort]

Heh, I just did read an article on a prison rodeo event they hold to raise money

[Monte Carlo]

Ha ha ha, death penalty debate ftw.

 

What would Jack Bauer do?

[Gorth]

Ask for a pay rise depending on ratings?

 

There are definitely people who deserves to have their life spans cut short. I just wouldn't ever trust the legal system to get it right every time.

 

As for the original article, it just goes to show how damaged the human mind can become for whatever reason. His mum never taught him not to play with his food first?

 

(I know, bad joke, but in this case it appears nobody got actually harmed).

[Zoraptor]

What would Jack Bauer do?

Hmm. Have his ex lover kill his wife, execute his boss, get hooked on durgs, rob a petrol gas station, have his daughter go into a cult, blow up his place or work etc etc.

 

Not necessarily in that order.

 

I blame Hannibal Lector for the spate of cannibals and wannabe cannibals, personally. Guy made cannibalism cool, now everyone wants to try it, gay Germans, Russians, even cops in New York. And all for a product placement for Italian wine and a variety of legume.

[BruceVC]

BBC link.

 

Be warned, it's not easy to stomach.

 

Just piling up ammunition the next time someone tells me morality is relative and subjective.

 

"A Briton faces up to 27 years in a US jail for plotting to kidnap, rape, kill and eat a child, authorities say.

Agents found the basement of Geoffrey Portway's Massachusetts home equipped with a steel cage and a child-sized home-made coffin, in a raid last year.

...

The dungeon was further kitted out with a chair, a television, and what appeared to be cable access to the internet, officers said.

Outside the room detectives found a chest freezer and an upright freezer, along with some disposable scalpels, butchering kits, and castration tools."

 

The funny thing is I'm not  sure I do believe in the conventional definition of "evil". I believe in mentally unbalanced people who commit reprehensible acts, but in many cases evil is relative. Of course in a fantasy RPG good\evil is more definitive

[Meshugger]

This is why opponents of the death penalty baffle and mystify me.

 

I would only support it if the family of the victim have to kill the murderer by themselves. Of course, there has to be safeguards as well, like from a judge with a weird sense of humor. 

 

"Mrs handlesworth, I see due to your high age and muscular capability that you cannot render justice with a 50lbs claymore. So therefore, i sentenced the accused to die by the hands of Mrs handlesworth, equipped with a broom and a spoon"

[Walsingham]

Er... I accept (previously discussed on this forum) the point that humans are fallible. But in a situation like this where innocence would require some pretty unimaginable accidents...

 

"Honestly, guv'nor. I made that cage and steel coffin in case a child what has been zombified wanders into my basement while I'm using i-tunes."

 

...That I have to suggest it's just good sense.

 

The objection will no doubt be raised that there would be appeals and whatnot to defend the guy, but I think the costs of those should be accounted for separately.

 

I believe the costs  are separate because they should come from an Identifying Retard Liberals - not to be confused with simple liberals - fund. A smartphone app would allow you to identify them at work or social functions and say "Get away from me you freakish child castration defending arsehole," then push them backwards over a sofa.

Edited May 10, 2013 by Walsingham

[TrashMan]

Death penalty only for clear cut cases.

 

The legal system can be wrong, but if you caught on cammera and with dozens of witnesses or your bloody murder spree, then the likelyhood of a mistake is so infitesimaly small, it's irrelevant.

 

Execution is not expensive - the legal system is.

And regardless what the sentance is - death or life in prison - the convicted can appeal again and again wand waste moeny and resoruces. So no, execution is NOT more expensive than letting someone rot in the jail. It just that people seem to forget that anyone can appeal.

 

The problem is that the guy didn't actually do anything - other than decorate his basement as a torture chamber.

So while he's definately for the "keep an eye on him" list, you can't really throw him in jail for something he might do.

Edited May 10, 2013 by TrashMan

[Rosbjerg]

The problem is that the guy didn't actually do anything - other than decorate his basement as a torture chamber.

So while he's definately for the "keep an eye on him" list, you can't really throw him in jail for something he might do.

 

It's a grey area sure, but planning to kill someone is most definitly punishable, I don't know the law or theory behind it - but we've all seen several cases where a person was arrested for that - suspected terrorists for instance.

[Walsingham]

The problem is that the guy didn't actually do anything - other than decorate his basement as a torture chamber.

So while he's definately for the "keep an eye on him" list, you can't really throw him in jail for something he might do.

 

What about, you know...

 

*Walsh waggles his eyebrows in the direction of a half built trebuchet*

[alanschu]

Death penalty only for clear cut cases.

 

The legal system can be wrong, but if you caught on cammera and with dozens of witnesses or your bloody murder spree, then the likelyhood of a mistake is so infitesimaly small, it's irrelevant.

 

The Law must apply to all.  There will still be situations where an innocent person is executed, because the line for what it means to be "clear cut" will always be challenged.  In large part because death penalty cases become higher profile cases, which means that people make their careers off of pushing for them and winning those cases.

 

 

 

 

And regardless what the sentance is - death or life in prison - the convicted can appeal again and again wand waste moeny and resoruces. So no, execution is NOT more expensive than letting someone rot in the jail. It just that people seem to forget that anyone can appeal.

 

Yes it is.  No matter what logical deductions you may come up with (they can both just appeal and appeal), the costs associated with the death penalty are higher.  Both in terms of cost of representation (people with cheaper defense lawyers are more likely to be executed - so you're placing a financial burden on someone in order to not die).

 

In Tennessee, the costs of a death penalty trial is 48% higher than one where life imprisonment is actively sought.  The median cost of a death penalty trial in Kansas is $1.26 million, as opposed to $740k.  Average trial duration is 34 days instead of 9.  The largest part of the overall cost comes during pretrial and during the trial. 

 

• The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases.
• The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case).
• The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater.
• The costs of carrying out (i.e. incarceration and/or execution) a death sentence were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case. (This is what most people logically see.  They go "Huh, killing a man should be much cheaper" and this is the aspect that it is)
• Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days.

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

 

Death Penalty cases are more expensive straight up front.

 

 

This only tangentially covers the systemic issues that already exist (people with more money have a great chance [per capita] of avoiding harsher sentencing), and doesn't even begin to cover situations with how pleas are determined and how people can be coerced into pleading guilty for a crime because pleading not guilty and losing may lead to one's own death.  Further, your analysis overlooks the differences in terms of the ability to appeal based upon whether or not someone is serving life imprisonment versus the death penalty.

Edited May 11, 2013 by alanschu

[Monte Carlo]

The only reason the US makes a meal of the death penalty is lawyers.

 

Next.

[Walsingham]

I'm just going to put this out there as an argument, see what you think:

 

Isn't there a case for saying that the Law must be respected as an instrument of justice in order to be effective and supported?

 

Speaking personally I get massively old testament on certain issues. Prolonged sadistic criminality on the helpless is not just morally anathema, but it is surely likely to be accompanied by a hefty forensic trail. To nerdtastically appropriate a line from Planescape Torment, I'm not sure we have a right to let certain criminals live once their guilt is ascertained.

 

I would have thought that in such circumstances the incidences are rare enough that the percentage cost issue is moot since it reflects a tiny overall percentage in government budgetary terms.

 

~

 

I'm not trying to be horrifically bloodthirsty, by the way. I happen to think this is causing us to examine some interesting questions about governance and justice in general.

[Monte Carlo]

Defending the blatantly guilty, those who have committed the most egregious crimes, has become a liberal parlour-game.

 

I have no time for it.

[HoonDing]

I'm all for the oubliette.